I have looked at your web site once for a few minutes. The symmetry is very
fascinating, even beautiful. However, the members of this list, myself
included, don't have the interest (at least certainly not the time) to
explore every other members' theories on one thing or another. You seem
dismayed that we have not all taken hours of time to study your data and
consider your ideas (i.e., interpretation of the data). There are many
intellectually and spiritually stimulating ideas that we all wish to
contemplate. For our own individual reasons (including what God leads us
to), we each choose only a few issues and topics to devote our time and
attention to.

Besides the limited-time issues, we also differ in our epistemological and
apologetic approach to interpreting and applying knowledge and data. You
must learn to accept that we do not all derive the same "evidentialist"
interpretation of your biblewheel data. Let me explain how probably many on
this list respond to the unveiling of your discovery by describing my own
reaction to it:

As I mentioned, I think the symmetry you describe is very interesting. But
not having the time to study it, I would have to just take your word for it
that it is a statistically significant pattern (e.g., relative to other
patterns one could create with the same bible books and alphabet data). No
disrespect intended, but I can't really just take your word for it because
I don't know you well enough. There are few people in this world that I
would simply take at their word about claims of such proposed far-reaching
importance. Even if the symmetry is amazing, I do not agree on a basic
apologetic level that it will mean anything to anyone who isn't a believer
already.

Your web link is available to anyone who is interested in visiting, so you
shouldn't need to always issue a hostile challenge to people to critique
your ideas. Periodically, or when you add additional data, simply invite
people from the list to visit and offer their criticisms.

I think people on the list are willing to discuss the more general issues
relating to your approach interpreting such evidence (I am guessing that
you view your findings as evidence for some sort of intelligent design,
i.e, proof of God). Perhaps you could pose the question, "If my finding
that this symmetry is in fact highly improbable and could not have arisen
by chance or human design, how ought this information be understood
theologically?" This and other such questions are of more general interest
for discussion on this list.

>For those who would just dismiss ID assertions
>as ridiculous, they would find themselves in the
>same camp as those who have poo-pooed
>radical new scientific theories in the past.
Or worse, a radical new vision of the supernatural unity of the Holy Bible.

The reaction to my work here on ASA has basically followed this pattern:

Ted wrote:
> Is is spiritually dangerous to teach YEC or TE, or some other position
on
> origins?

I think the same question could be asked about scientific materialism or
methodological naturalism. If those approaches are taught as dogma, there
is, in my opinion, a spiritual risk of fatalism, extreme relativism, or
nihilism. On the other hand religious positions that stand in stark
contrast to our scientific take on reality, can create a spiritual crisis
for individuals who later in life find those positions unreasonable. That
can lead to a disillusionment and rejection of religion, per se.

Seems to me what should be emphasized about origins in public education is
that *no* theory of origins is without its problems, discuss the problems
then let the kids and their parents decide for themselves. If anything the
ID discussions have raised important questions about the completeness of
Darwinian theory. For those who would just dismiss ID assertions as
ridiculous, they would find themselves in the same camp as those who have
poo-pooed radical new scientific theories in the past.